Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:

Defensive coordinator Vic Fangio has agreed to a one-year extension through 2015, a league source confirmed. His defenses have ranked among the top three in scoring each of his three seasons with the 49ers.

I might learn to like Vanilla.


http://www.49erswebzone.com/

It's a very sound defensive philosophy...except in the playoffs where we face better talent/coaches. I don't think anyone is thinking we should change the base defense but we should also know when to overload blitzers, sneak up a CB/S blitz, add some more inside blitzes, no longer play off coverage WHILE bringing a blitz, etc.

That said, with Rogers and Brown on the outside, off coverage was about all we could do IMHO. Now with a younger, physical, more aggressive secondary in Brock, Culliver and Reid (excellent range), Fangio might be in position to add some more press coverage to his more complex off coverage schemes for added confusion. Perhaps once he sees the back end can hold their own, he'll allow Willis and Bowman to play more down hill (less in coverage) and even disguise and bring more front 7 pressure. That's what I'm hoping for anyways!

Fangio made adaptations last year. He used the blitz more frequently. He rotated the defensive line more.

Last year, if I recall correctly, the defense in the play offs was more consistent that it had been the previous two years.

I felt, and still feel, that the defense is way ahead of the offense.

Looking forward to seeing what happens next year.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:
Defensive coordinator Vic Fangio has agreed to a one-year extension through 2015, a league source confirmed. His defenses have ranked among the top three in scoring each of his three seasons with the 49ers.

I might learn to like Vanilla.


http://www.49erswebzone.com/

It's a very sound defensive philosophy...except in the playoffs where we face better talent/coaches. I don't think anyone is thinking we should change the base defense but we should also know when to overload blitzers, sneak up a CB/S blitz, add some more inside blitzes, no longer play off coverage WHILE bringing a blitz, etc.

That said, with Rogers and Brown on the outside, off coverage was about all we could do IMHO. Now with a younger, physical, more aggressive secondary in Brock, Culliver and Reid (excellent range), Fangio might be in position to add some more press coverage to his more complex off coverage schemes for added confusion. Perhaps once he sees the back end can hold their own, he'll allow Willis and Bowman to play more down hill (less in coverage) and even disguise and bring more front 7 pressure. That's what I'm hoping for anyways!

Fangio made adaptations last year. He used the blitz more frequently. He rotated the defensive line more.

Last year, if I recall correctly, the defense in the play offs was more consistent that it had been the previous two years.

I felt, and still feel, that the defense is way ahead of the offense.

Looking forward to seeing what happens next year.

No question about that! The defense is certainly ahead of the offense. And I was very pleased to see the added rotation with Dial, Dobbs, development of TJE and Dorsey played great all year. Dial didn't get many snaps but he did get in games and even Carradine was active for a game or two so that tells me he adapted to the desire to rotate the DL more. That's encouraging. I think adding startering DB's who can play press and Reid who has excellent range with a wiley veteran in Bethea is going to surprise some fans...Fangio now has more balance and the more comfortable he feels using both press and off coverage, the less "vanilla" he'll get. I still have concerns about how he uses his OLB's and DL and ILB's but maybe with added confidence in the back end, we'll see adjustments up front. Also, with guys coming into their own in Dial and Carradine and maybe Okoye/Williams, we'll see an added focus on aggression up front as well.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:
Defensive coordinator Vic Fangio has agreed to a one-year extension through 2015, a league source confirmed. His defenses have ranked among the top three in scoring each of his three seasons with the 49ers.

I might learn to like Vanilla.


http://www.49erswebzone.com/

It's a very sound defensive philosophy...except in the playoffs where we face better talent/coaches. I don't think anyone is thinking we should change the base defense but we should also know when to overload blitzers, sneak up a CB/S blitz, add some more inside blitzes, no longer play off coverage WHILE bringing a blitz, etc.

That said, with Rogers and Brown on the outside, off coverage was about all we could do IMHO. Now with a younger, physical, more aggressive secondary in Brock, Culliver and Reid (excellent range), Fangio might be in position to add some more press coverage to his more complex off coverage schemes for added confusion. Perhaps once he sees the back end can hold their own, he'll allow Willis and Bowman to play more down hill (less in coverage) and even disguise and bring more front 7 pressure. That's what I'm hoping for anyways!

Fangio made adaptations last year. He used the blitz more frequently. He rotated the defensive line more.

Last year, if I recall correctly, the defense in the play offs was more consistent that it had been the previous two years.

I felt, and still feel, that the defense is way ahead of the offense.

Looking forward to seeing what happens next year.

No question about that! The defense is certainly ahead of the offense. And I was very pleased to see the added rotation with Dial, Dobbs, development of TJE and Dorsey played great all year. Dial didn't get many snaps but he did get in games and even Carradine was active for a game or two so that tells me he adapted to the desire to rotate the DL more. That's encouraging. I think adding startering DB's who can play press and Reid who has excellent range with a wiley veteran in Bethea is going to surprise some fans...Fangio now has more balance and the more comfortable he feels using both press and off coverage, the less "vanilla" he'll get. I still have concerns about how he uses his OLB's and DL and ILB's but maybe with added confidence in the back end, we'll see adjustments up front. Also, with guys coming into their own in Dial and Carradine and maybe Okoye/Williams, we'll see an added focus on aggression up front as well.

Plus vanilla isn't always a bad thing, I like vanilla latte's......... But, I mean, really, Seattle's defense is VERY vanilla. It's cover 3 zone 80% of the time and there's tons of people(I'm not one of them) who will say they're the best defense in football(I'd put them at 2 or 3 considering how often they get away with cheating....) Dick Lebeau is one of the most exotic look kind of guys out there and their defense wasn't good at all last year. The reason Andy Reid fired his DC half way through the year in 2012 is because he was trying to play a bunch of exotic zone blitzes that weren't effective. Exotic is only great if it takes the other team by surprise and you've guessed just right. In that, your stunt blitz and secondary rotation is into the passing combo of the other team. The hardest defense to throw against is a 7 or 8 man coverage. Unless the QB has forever to throw.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by buck:
Defensive coordinator Vic Fangio has agreed to a one-year extension through 2015, a league source confirmed. His defenses have ranked among the top three in scoring each of his three seasons with the 49ers.

I might learn to like Vanilla.


http://www.49erswebzone.com/

It's a very sound defensive philosophy...except in the playoffs where we face better talent/coaches. I don't think anyone is thinking we should change the base defense but we should also know when to overload blitzers, sneak up a CB/S blitz, add some more inside blitzes, no longer play off coverage WHILE bringing a blitz, etc.

That said, with Rogers and Brown on the outside, off coverage was about all we could do IMHO. Now with a younger, physical, more aggressive secondary in Brock, Culliver and Reid (excellent range), Fangio might be in position to add some more press coverage to his more complex off coverage schemes for added confusion. Perhaps once he sees the back end can hold their own, he'll allow Willis and Bowman to play more down hill (less in coverage) and even disguise and bring more front 7 pressure. That's what I'm hoping for anyways!

Fangio made adaptations last year. He used the blitz more frequently. He rotated the defensive line more.

Last year, if I recall correctly, the defense in the play offs was more consistent that it had been the previous two years.

I felt, and still feel, that the defense is way ahead of the offense.

Looking forward to seeing what happens next year.

No question about that! The defense is certainly ahead of the offense. And I was very pleased to see the added rotation with Dial, Dobbs, development of TJE and Dorsey played great all year. Dial didn't get many snaps but he did get in games and even Carradine was active for a game or two so that tells me he adapted to the desire to rotate the DL more. That's encouraging. I think adding startering DB's who can play press and Reid who has excellent range with a wiley veteran in Bethea is going to surprise some fans...Fangio now has more balance and the more comfortable he feels using both press and off coverage, the less "vanilla" he'll get. I still have concerns about how he uses his OLB's and DL and ILB's but maybe with added confidence in the back end, we'll see adjustments up front. Also, with guys coming into their own in Dial and Carradine and maybe Okoye/Williams, we'll see an added focus on aggression up front as well.

Plus vanilla isn't always a bad thing, I like vanilla latte's......... But, I mean, really, Seattle's defense is VERY vanilla. It's cover 3 zone 80% of the time and there's tons of people(I'm not one of them) who will say they're the best defense in football(I'd put them at 2 or 3 considering how often they get away with cheating....) Dick Lebeau is one of the most exotic look kind of guys out there and their defense wasn't good at all last year. The reason Andy Reid fired his DC half way through the year in 2012 is because he was trying to play a bunch of exotic zone blitzes that weren't effective. Exotic is only great if it takes the other team by surprise and you've guessed just right. In that, your stunt blitz and secondary rotation is into the passing combo of the other team. The hardest defense to throw against is a 7 or 8 man coverage. Unless the QB has forever to throw.

LOL...great to have you back!

Seattle is about as straight-up (vanilla) as can be...b/c they have the personnel to play press on the outside and exploit the "loop holes" in the rule book and use cover 3 and that's pretty much it, really (with a heavy rotation on wiley, older pass rushers of which they won't have for 2014). I doubt they'll be able to stop the run as effectively this year as well as they lost a lot of active beef up front to FA. In fact, I showed in another post how lucky Seattle was to acquire so many older pass rushers at way-below-market value last year and THAT was one of the biggest reasons they were the defense they were last year. They had the beef up front to stop the inside run and relentlessly bring heat off the edges while the DB's could focus on perfecting press coverage and cover 3. Simple. This year they had to pay Bennett and bam, 10 FA's gone. Avril will probably be gone next year as well an if they choose to keep him for market-value, they'll lose even more to FA.

As to our personnel, do you expect to see some variations in coverage schemes with different personnel this year?

Defensively we are fine. We gave up 23 (Seattle), 10 (Carolina), and 20 (GB) in the playoffs. If you cant score 24pts in a big game, you dont deserve to win.

In regards to the Seattle game, i feel if they dont get a TD on that 4th and 7 throw we win the game. defense got turnovers and held the Seattle offense basically the entire game. Offensive turn overs cost us that game.

I truly feel this is a must win Superbowl year for this team. Aside from Seattle there isnt an NFC team as complete as us or anywhere near it.

Originally posted by Canadian9erfan:
Defensively we are fine. We gave up 23 (Seattle), 10 (Carolina), and 20 (GB) in the playoffs. If you cant score 24pts in a big game, you dont deserve to win.

In regards to the Seattle game, i feel if they dont get a TD on that 4th and 7 throw we win the game. defense got turnovers and held the Seattle offense basically the entire game. Offensive turn overs cost us that game.

I truly feel this is a must win Superbowl year for this team. Aside from Seattle there isnt an NFC team as complete as us or anywhere near it.

we have to do better in getting pressure on the qb,,, our secondary could not get off the field in third and fourth down plays so no wonder they opted to blow that up. to many games last year when we went soft and the game turned out harder to secure than it needed to be. strongly disagree about"this year is a must win super bowl".. why? if we do not win the super bowl are we going to dry up and blow away? i am not sure why so many fans are just breathlessly predicting some stupid ass window is closing on us for the millionth time, this team is built to make a deep run in the playoffs for a long time, as long as we keep key players, draft well and make clever use of free agency. i do not need to run a f**king hill with jerry rice to see that

Originally posted by cciowa:
we have to do better in getting pressure on the qb,,, our secondary could not get off the field in third and fourth down plays so no wonder they opted to blow that up. to many games last year when we went soft and the game turned out harder to secure than it needed to be. strongly disagree about"this year is a must win super bowl".. why? if we do not win the super bowl are we going to dry up and blow away? i am not sure why so many fans are just breathlessly predicting some stupid ass window is closing on us for the millionth time, this team is built to make a deep run in the playoffs for a long time, as long as we keep key players, draft well and make clever use of free agency. i do not need to run a f**king hill with jerry rice to see that

HAHA i hear what your saying. I meant "Superbowl Window". After this season (assuming we dont win) i fully expect us to fight for playoffs each year after and contend, but there is a difference between a playoff team and a superbowl capable team. I want to win a superbowl. To do that you need to have one hell of a team, and go on a great run.

Ex. No one expected Philly, Saints, Carolina to make and WIN the superbowl this year in NFC, and same goes for Indy, KC, SD, Cinci. They are all good teams who could make the playoffs next few years, but i dont see any of those teams winning this past season. Personally, i am not satisfied with that. I want to WIN. Last 3 seasons we had a team that could WIN and we blew it.

The reason i said that about 49ers, is Kaep is going to get paid (taking $ away from others), Crabtree, Iupati FAs, Boldin could get released, Gore as well, Cowboy retire, etc. Those are the core and leaders of the team. The good thing is we have a lot of young players coming in to take those places, we shall see if they can raise the bar. If that happens we will be a superbowl contender and i will be very happy.

I dont think too much about last years loss to Seattle, i think more of the opportunity blown vs. Ravens in Superbowl. We were 10x better than them.

Originally posted by Canadian9erfan:
HAHA i hear what your saying. I meant "Superbowl Window". After this season (assuming we dont win) i fully expect us to fight for playoffs each year after and contend, but there is a difference between a playoff team and a superbowl capable team. I want to win a superbowl. To do that you need to have one hell of a team, and go on a great run.

Ex. No one expected Philly, Saints, Carolina to make and WIN the superbowl this year in NFC, and same goes for Indy, KC, SD, Cinci. They are all good teams who could make the playoffs next few years, but i dont see any of those teams winning this past season. Personally, i am not satisfied with that. I want to WIN. Last 3 seasons we had a team that could WIN and we blew it.

The reason i said that about 49ers, is Kaep is going to get paid (taking $ away from others), Crabtree, Iupati FAs, Boldin could get released, Gore as well, Cowboy retire, etc. Those are the core and leaders of the team. The good thing is we have a lot of young players coming in to take those places, we shall see if they can raise the bar. If that happens we will be a superbowl contender and i will be very happy.

I dont think too much about last years loss to Seattle, i think more of the opportunity blown vs. Ravens in Superbowl. We were 10x better than them.

we lost the super bowl due to roman and special ed teams. we lost last year because one pass from ck was two inches off the mark so we do not have any big hill to climb to get back to the super bowl. unlike when i was young,, i do not measure the success of a team only on winning a super bowl. all those players you mentioned that will not be here in a few years like gore and justin can be replaced by younger people,as long as we draft well, continue to keep cornerstones in place like ck on offense and smith on defense and make clever use of free agency. with our team and coaches, cept for roman, we will not be in a position where we have to "rebuild" but we simply "reload"

Originally posted by Canadian9erfan:
Defensively we are fine. We gave up 23 (Seattle), 10 (Carolina), and 20 (GB) in the playoffs. If you cant score 24pts in a big game, you dont deserve to win.

In regards to the Seattle game, i feel if they dont get a TD on that 4th and 7 throw we win the game. defense got turnovers and held the Seattle offense basically the entire game. Offensive turn overs cost us that game.

I truly feel this is a must win Superbowl year for this team. Aside from Seattle there isnt an NFC team as complete as us or anywhere near it.

Agreed but "how" we lost those games is identical to how we've lost in the playoffs the last 3 years. That's certainly not meant to minimize the struggles on offense and the very poor ST play (and coaching decisions) or the horrendous and critical calls going against us when it mattered most; nor the poor schematic play calling, game planning and in-game decisions made either.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
But you also have to have players that can play a press man effectively. Whenever I saw us in press man last year on the game film it didn't help defeat the short routes any better than the off coverage. In some cases it was less effective. I think sometimes as fans we think of press coverage as a short route beating technique. The purpose of press coverage isn't to defeat short routes, it's to disrupt the timing of a qb and receiver on 3,5, or 7 step drops as many routes and throws are predicated on the timing of the drop and the throw.

Both techniques have their uses and times to use. Also, through watching the film, you can't put all the blame on Fangio for those teams coming back. I watched the film and the drives you're referring to. In each of those drives Fangio used a LOT of different defenses to try and stop the opposing team. He used cover 1 with a blitz, cover-0 cover3 cover 2 man, cover 2 zone, cover 4 and sometimes press and off coverage and it seemed like the common denominator wasn't the coverage it was consistent poor execution.

My preference would have been to be more aggressive sending bodies at the quarterback so that the throws become less accurate. Send a cornerback in if they are not effective actually covering. What's the loss?

There's a trade off to sending blitzers as a DC can choose to fortify the pass rush (blitz) while sacrificing the defensive backfield, or a DC can choose to fortify the defensive backfield while sacrificing the pass rush (rush 4). It's about which squad the DC wants to do 'more work' - the pass rush or the coverage. By rushing only 4 and dropping 7, he is forcing the pass rush to do more work (4 rushers vs 5/6 pass blockers). When a DC blitzes, he is forcing the coverage to do more work as there are only 5/6 in coverage resulting in more area to cover. A good DC, I believe, mixes it up and keeps the opposing offense guessing. Perhaps even blitz less, so that when they do blitz, it's more surprising.

Since Fangio believes he can generate QB pressure with 4 on most downs, he chooses to fortify the defensive backfield and drop 7 into coverage. This also allows him to disguise his coverage more easily as the QB sees 7 defenders in coverage, more to account for. It may be that once he feels he has better CBs, he will feel less of a risk to blitz, and we'll see more of it. I think we all saw how versus NO, he sometimes rushed 3 while dropping 8 into coverage. Sure, the pressure doesn't arrive as quick, but this can mess with a QB's rhythm as his internal clock makes him think he is hanging onto the ball for too long. Then with 8 in coverage, it's harder for WRs to get open. It had mixed results, if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
But you also have to have players that can play a press man effectively. Whenever I saw us in press man last year on the game film it didn't help defeat the short routes any better than the off coverage. In some cases it was less effective. I think sometimes as fans we think of press coverage as a short route beating technique. The purpose of press coverage isn't to defeat short routes, it's to disrupt the timing of a qb and receiver on 3,5, or 7 step drops as many routes and throws are predicated on the timing of the drop and the throw.

Both techniques have their uses and times to use. Also, through watching the film, you can't put all the blame on Fangio for those teams coming back. I watched the film and the drives you're referring to. In each of those drives Fangio used a LOT of different defenses to try and stop the opposing team. He used cover 1 with a blitz, cover-0 cover3 cover 2 man, cover 2 zone, cover 4 and sometimes press and off coverage and it seemed like the common denominator wasn't the coverage it was consistent poor execution.

My preference would have been to be more aggressive sending bodies at the quarterback so that the throws become less accurate. Send a cornerback in if they are not effective actually covering. What's the loss?

There's a trade off to sending blitzers as a DC can choose to fortify the pass rush (blitz) while sacrificing the defensive backfield, or a DC can choose to fortify the defensive backfield while sacrificing the pass rush (rush 4). It's about which squad the DC wants to do 'more work' - the pass rush or the coverage. By rushing only 4 and dropping 7, he is forcing the pass rush to do more work (4 rushers vs 5/6 pass blockers). When a DC blitzes, he is forcing the coverage to do more work as there are only 5/6 in coverage resulting in more area to cover. A good DC, I believe, mixes it up and keeps the opposing offense guessing. Perhaps even blitz less, so that when they do blitz, it's more surprising.

Since Fangio believes he can generate QB pressure with 4 on most downs, he chooses to fortify the defensive backfield and drop 7 into coverage. This also allows him to disguise his coverage more easily as the QB sees 7 defenders in coverage, more to account for. It may be that once he feels he has better CBs, he will feel less of a risk to blitz, and we'll see more of it. I think we all saw how versus NO, he sometimes rushed 3 while dropping 8 into coverage. Sure, the pressure doesn't arrive as quick, but this can mess with a QB's rhythm as his internal clock makes him think he is hanging onto the ball for too long. Then with 8 in coverage, it's harder for WRs to get open. It had mixed results, if I remember correctly.

very true, and, if everyone wants to see us stop giving up short throws, exotic blitzing and more blitzing period is not the answer. When you blitz you almost never take less men out of deep coverage responsibilities, mainly because you're asking to get beat deep when you do that. Instead, it's usually pulling someone out of short coverage responsibilities.

For example: If you blitz with a man-man coverage with either a cover 0 or cover 1 your DB's are going to give up something short as they cannot let anyone get behind them because of the lack of safety help.
If we go with an exotic fire zone type of blitz you're still using a basic cover 3 zone on the deep end and using 1-2 less men on the underneath zones. With a normal blitz zone you tend to vacate a flat responsibility from the extra rusher.
So, all those short throws that everyone wants to see stopped aren't going to be stopped by more blitzing. You need more men in coverage to stop those or have a major risk of giving up a big play.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Fangio's basic philosophy is to confuse the QB and pressure him into making mistakes using the blitzing 3-4 defense. He doesn't seem to emphasize defensive coverage. I think Fangio over-emphasizes the run defense at the expense of the pass defense. He's a DC that likes *pressure* (rather than coverage) to force turnovers and mistakes on the part of the QB and his passing attack. George was a great defensive back's coach. He had a defense for every scheme. Now I understand that era is over and this is a new era with new defensive rules and so on, but what I think can translate from the George Siefert era is that his defenses were geared to stop the pass first. Not the run.

What do I mean - Pass first, run second? Well, how often do we use the nickel defense? Probably a majority of the time. Why? Most teams have to catch up to us. I bet we use the base defense probably around less than 40 percent. When we (under Fangio) have to stop the run, we use the base defense and our three down linemen go big and heavy. But when we go nickel, we have a vulnerability on the CB position, and why I think that is what it is - is philosophy. Fangio believes that a good strong front 7 will negate needing a really good defensive backfield. That's the dome patrol defense, in my opinion. George, on the other hand, designed his defenses to stop the pass (at least his nickel defense was very strong against the pass). George always had great CB's and Walsh provided him with great pass rushers. The best pass defense is a combination of great DB's that can cover Wr's and great D Linemen that can rush the passer. The Linebackers didn't really have that great a role in George's Nickel D, other than look for the back coming out of the backfield and tracking the TE's in the middle zone areas.

In an era where it's a passing league, why would a defense emphasize stopping the run? Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to stop the run, because if you don't - the other team will simply play keep away with a ball control ground attack. George had very good strong run defenses. But he didn't do it with all pro Linebackers. He had very good D Linemen and strong CB's that could turn the RB back into the linebacker and D-line pursuit, and very good run stopping linebackers that would give way to faster coverage linebackers when the nickel was in play. His real defense was the Nickel defense. He'd shut down teams trying to pass on third downs with his nickel personnel.

All I'm saying is that Fangio (as George did) has to shore up the nickel personnel. I still want to stop the run, but with a Base defense, not nickel. I think our current Nickel defense is too linebacker heavy. It's important to have a strong Nickel and Dime defense to shut down passing teams on 3rd down - specially in the post season against elite passing attacks. Teams were in terror when George's nickel defense came on the field. It was a stifling pass defense as Marino found out in '84. I think Fangio has an eye for linebackers, and I think he can afford to take lower round LB's and develop them, but he should really sell it to Baalke that Baalke should place more importance on drafting first round talent DB's and specially Cornerbacks for the nickel defense. I think good Cornerbacks are the foundation stone for a good nickel defense, and you strengthen and protect good cornerbacks with a good pass rush. I don't think it will take a big adjustment for Fangio. He'll still have his strong front 7, but instead of all pro middle linebackers, he'll have all pro cornerbacks.

You touched on many points there, good post. I actually think Bowman just kind of emerged out of 'nowhere'. He was a 3rd rounder that now plays like a top5 pick. I think I get what you are saying, but Bow just kind of fell into the 49er's lap. Even they could not have known Bow would be this awesome. So we can't fault Fangio for having 2 all-pro ILBs while not having any all-pro CBs.

Thanks for the insight into Seifert's philosophy. I would say that since the 49er's offense was dynamite in the glory years, it made a lot of sense to focus on producing great DBs since the opponent were passing to play catch up. That isn't the case with this current 49er team.

It seems you would rather build a defense starting with the defensive backfield because it is a passing league, as you said. Meaning build a defense by investing more into DBs with the front 7 being lower on the priority list. Something has to come first and foremost, correct? I feel that when you lose the war in the trenches, it really starts a rippling effect within the game. Now, as the opposing RB is averaging a nice 4 yards a carry, a safety has to come down to help out. Play action begins to take an effect on the defense as they start to gear up and stop the run, putting pressure on the DBs.

Speaking specifically about the 49ers and their division foes, namely SEA. I think it is vital that the 49ers stop the run first and foremost. SEA couldn't muster much offensively until Lynch started to have success. Then the field began to tilt towards SEA's favor. The 49ers have done very well versus the pass-first teams that have excellent QBs, so the results are there. What the 49ers try to achieve is making the opponent one dimensional so that they don't dare think about running the ball. At that point, the front four can pin their ears back to get after the QB with no respect for the running game.

I agree with you that the 49ers should now focus on the DBs, but only because the front 7 is nicely stacked. That must come first, imo.

I just want to note, with all the great discussion here (jonnydel where ya been??)

that i started this thread awhile back, and since then, Fangio has been much better. As he settles in with this team, and with the talented coaches around him, I expect to see even more chess games (tho it was noted, complexity for complexity's sake is not the goal)

Originally posted by Big_Daddy:
I just want to note, with all the great discussion here (jonnydel where ya been??)

that i started this thread awhile back, and since then, Fangio has been much better. As he settles in with this team, and with the talented coaches around him, I expect to see even more chess games (tho it was noted, complexity for complexity's sake is not the goal)

I think it's great that we are starting to discuss more about the defense. It seems 90% of posts are about the offense, while the 49er's awesome defense gets crumbs, with regards to how much we post about them. There's a lot of goodness happening on the defensive side of the ball.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
very true, and, if everyone wants to see us stop giving up short throws, exotic blitzing and more blitzing period is not the answer. When you blitz you almost never take less men out of deep coverage responsibilities, mainly because you're asking to get beat deep when you do that. Instead, it's usually pulling someone out of short coverage responsibilities.

For example: If you blitz with a man-man coverage with either a cover 0 or cover 1 your DB's are going to give up something short as they cannot let anyone get behind them because of the lack of safety help.
If we go with an exotic fire zone type of blitz you're still using a basic cover 3 zone on the deep end and using 1-2 less men on the underneath zones. With a normal blitz zone you tend to vacate a flat responsibility from the extra rusher.
So, all those short throws that everyone wants to see stopped aren't going to be stopped by more blitzing. You need more men in coverage to stop those or have a major risk of giving up a big play.

Mmmm, yes, but our normal coverage wasn't working. So to me, sending an extra blitzer has a better chance of disrupting the flow and rhythm of the offense at the cost of giving up a few extra yac for short passes. The other guys would just score sooner. That would actually help us. A blitz approach also tries to put our best athletes closer to the qb. The strength of the D is (was) smith smith bowman willis brooks lemonier skuta whitner. How do we get those guys on the field running after the q? the other team was going down the field 1-2-3 with timing routes.